Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Section 129(3) was held to be directory as to the seven-day timelines for issuing notice and passing the penalty order, because the statute uses procedural deadlines to secure expedition but does not make delay fatal to jurisdiction or validity. The Court rejected the view that non-compliance automatically renders detention proceedings time-barred, and found no basis to interfere on limitation where the notice was issued within seven days and the penalty order followed on the eighth day, amounting to substantial compliance. The petitioner, being a registered dealer when the transaction began, was treated as the bona fide owner and was entitled to release of the detained goods and vehicle on deposit, under protest, of an amount equal to the penalty, with liberty to challenge the penalty order separately.
Section 129(3) was held to be directory as to the seven-day timelines for issuing notice and passing the penalty order, because the statute uses procedural deadlines to secure expedition but does not make delay fatal to jurisdiction or validity. The Court rejected the view that non-compliance automatically renders detention proceedings time-barred, and found no basis to interfere on limitation where the notice was issued within seven days and the penalty order followed on the eighth day, amounting to substantial compliance. The petitioner, being a registered dealer when the transaction began, was treated as the bona fide owner and was entitled to release of the detained goods and vehicle on deposit, under protest, of an amount equal to the penalty, with liberty to challenge the penalty order separately.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
